A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
TnT says:
=============
I live in NYC, and if I want, I can travel to California without
getting anyones permission, or carrying papers, and having to bribe
border guards to let me pass. It is trully amazing.
==============
Well, I don't know about amazing. If you and I want to visit (I'm in
Canada), we'd both have to wait in infernal lines at the border and be
subjected to interrogation by boder officials.
If you twits would quit letting terrorists in, we might not have to.
Our friends in Europe
can travel from, say, Germany, to Holland, to France, to Spain, and
NEVER have to stop at the border. That, to me, is more amazing.
Well, first, it's an extremely recent thing. For most of history, you still
had to have a passport and stop at the borders. It remains to be seen if the
lack of border controls in the EU will be beneficial or will facilitate the
movement of terrorists. Nonetheless, the EU's epiphany regarding open
borders merely copycats what's been happening in the United STATES for more
than 200 years. We may not have utterly unguarded borders with Canada or
Mexico, but not only CAN you travel freely from state to state in the US,
you have an absolute constitutional right to do so, regardless of what any
particular state may say.
You may have thought my response to comrade Weiser was funny, but he
truly did nicely articulate some socialist truths.
No I didn't, you just fail to understand socialism.
Very clearly,
governments, representing the people, have to make some decisions
deemed to be in the strategic interests of the nation. Scott happens to
think corporate welfare to agri-business constitutes such a strategic
interest. I don't know. Only the people of America can be the judge of
that.
However, I challenge all right-wingers who are of like mind (that is,
agree with Scott) to consider that nations which they consider to be
"socialist" may have made similar, democratic and strategic choices.
They may well have done so, although in the vast majority of cases the
choices are anything but "democratic." They are most often entirely
undemocratic, as the proletariat has no voice whatsoever in their government
or in the selection of government officials. There are some rare exceptions.
They may have decided that it is in the nation's strategic interest to
have an educated populace. Consequently they may fund free schools and
universities in a strategic interest.
Which they are entitled to do.
I do not consider it far fetched
for a people to decide that it is in their strategic interests to have
a healthy populace -- and to fund medical care.
Which is fine, except that socialized medicine has been proven to be a death
sentence for the seriously ill because underpaid, overworked doctors have no
reason to extend themselves and because health care is free, people with
minor complaints feel free to clog the system with petty complaints.
Ask anyone in Britain with heart disease how long they've been on the
surgery waiting list for proof.
In a capitalistic health care system such as the US, you can obtain the best
health care in the world, if you can afford it...and indeed in most cases
even if you cannot (through subsidies paid medical providers by the
government) when you need it because the marketplace provides rewards for
exemplary service.
Other nations see the
ability of people to travel with ease as a strategic interest -- and
fund public transit.
So do we.
Look, if THE PEOPLE choose to fund a variety of activities, that is a
democratic choice. I think it matters little what you call it. Call it
socialism if that pleases you.
It depends entirely upon whether the system is truly democratic, in that it
allows the people to regularly choose their representatives in government,
or whether the socialism is imposed by the unelected bureaucratic elite upon
the proletariat.
In the vast majority of cases, socialist systems do not allow the
proletariat any choice at all, because socialism presumes, as a fundamental
precept, that government bureaucrats are better able to judge what the
proletariat need and deserve than the proletariat itself is.
Me, I'd rather pay welfare to the poor that welfare to corporations.
I'm hoping my fellow citizens agree with me.
The flaw in your logic is that when you pay welfare to the poor, they don't
produce anything in return, and they have no impetus to improve their
condition and become productive members of society. Just look at places like
Denmark, where the marginal tax rates are above 50%, and half the nation is
on the dole, paid by the other half.
When you give subsidies to companies to help them succeed, excel and become
larger, the immediate return is more jobs that the poor can take, thus
becoming productive and self-sufficient members of society rather than
leeches.
Giving money to the poor is like giving a fish to a hungry man. He'll eat
the fish and be hungry again in six hours. Put him to work on a fishing
boat, bought with a low-cost government loan, and not only will he never be
hungry again, but he'll feed others and improve the economy.
Welfare is the touchstone of the failure of the liberal democrat's agenda.
They simply cannot understand that it is better for everyone to support
business, which employs the unemployed and moves the economy forward, than
it is to simply dole out tax money to the indigent.
In this country you have the right to *pursue* happiness, not a guarantee
that you will achieve it. You have a right to *fail* to achieve happiness
too, and it's up to each individual to provide for their own happiness, or
lack thereof. It's not an obligation of the rest of us (through our
government) to provide happiness.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser
"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM
© 2005 Scott Weiser
|